Sony Introduces 'PSN Pass' To Fight Used Game Sales 291
Gamasutra reports that Sony has introduced "PSN Pass" — one-time codes that will unlock complete online access for certain games. "The company didn't offer details on how used and rental players would access online features in these titles, but did clarify that first-party use of the passes will be decided on a game-by-game basis." The initiative is similar to the "Online Pass" that EA rolled out last year, and to Sony's own experiment with SOCOM 4. Sony's explanation for the Pass will probably leave you wishing Google Translate supported marketing-speak: "This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."
Single Player Access (Score:2)
Game company using this technology to restrict any access to the game whatsoever to the first buyer in 3... 2...
Translation (Score:3)
Sony's explanation for the Pass will probably leave you wishing Google Translate supported marketing-speak: "This is an important initiative as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."
Let me do the honors: "Bend over suckers."
Sony screw the consumer? That's unpossible! (Score:2)
I mean, you expect this kind of behavior out of others...but Sony has such a long history of consumer-friendly practices.
Wow, maintaining that level of sarcasm made even me dizzy.
RIP First-sale doctrine (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another stab at consumer rights.
Up until about 2010 games were considered sold since they weren't expected to be returned, and as such were subject to the first-sale doctrine. Of course then the US courts go and decide that it's all fine and dandy for EULAs to remove this right. *grumble grumble* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]
In my day you had a disc, and that was your game. You could play it, lend it to a friend, sell it, turn it into a shuriken (though that was mostly done with AOL cds). I miss that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They're just games, so don't buy them. There are far, far better ways to spend your time. Odds are that you've already played every game on the market, anyway, just under a different name or brand.
Re: (Score:2)
They're just games, so don't buy them. There are far, far better ways to get them.
Well, it's only been 170 [baen.com] years. I'm sure game developers get the memo any day now. Not that it matters to me, since I nowadays get most of my games from Steam, it being convenient and having a lot of cheap ones - however, a "third-party DRM" is a deal-breaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Then buy DRM-free games and support the developers who think like you."
Morons and ignorant people out-number discerning members of the population by a large margin. You can't change a society that is completely moronic/ignorant and simply doesn't care.
Re: (Score:3)
Then buy DRM-free games
They don't make those for consoles, and they tend not to make certain genres of game at all for PCs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to inform you, but there is no such thing as a self-consistent "capitalist principal", unless you count "make money any way you can" as a principle.
To elaborate a bit: the idea of capitalism is that people following their own best interests end up working for the benefit of all (such as a farm hand helping feed lot
Re: (Score:3)
These Things Never Make Sense To Me. (Score:2)
To me it seems like they are trying to double dip. If I buy a game, go online and play it for a few months, and then sell it to omeone else and they go onnlie to play, there is no difference in the server cost beyond adding that [lyers tats to the game. I'm simply giving up my reserved slot to someone else.
It's like the Other OS fiasco again. Whe they came out with the PSN, it was free. You have the game, you go online, no fees, you just enjoy it. Now they're saying "Oh actually, now you have to make s
Re: (Score:2)
This is really, really going to suck for GameFly
Re: (Score:2)
As for the markeing speak, how is decreasing the number of players available forplay enhaning the experience?
As you said, they're not even decreasing the number of players (except if you count the ones that don't bother buying their products in the first place because of this), the 2nd hand market only maintains the number of players that they had before since the one selling is leaving and the one buying is coming in.
They can do whatever they want (Score:2)
Good luck finding a pickup group outside (Score:2)
steam (Score:2)
so i'll be sticking with steam then - the games are much cheaper on there anyway
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is currently participating in a DDoS attack on itself known as the "Steam Summer Sale."
It's likely to end on the 11th, and things will return to normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Disc based games can be cheaper too if you wait and do not buy it on day one, I buy many games at 30$ or less frequently. By the way, can I buy some of your Steam games you do not play anymore?
People here frequently bash Sony, but be consistent, this blocking of online for second hand users is not good, keep in mind that they are not the only one doing it. In Steam I can not even play the same game with another user on the same machine without that person messing with my scores/saved game
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you buy Sony products? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, why do people buy Sony products anymore? I quit when the rootkit scandal broke, and all they have done since is prove that I made a good choice. While every corporation exists to make profit, it should be symbiotic, yet Sony has clearly demonstrated they don't care about their customers, only their profits, by their deeds and their words, many times over.
You can actually get by just fine without Sony products, many of us have for many years. We don't need Playstation (plenty of other choices), we skip buying music on their labels, we have none of their hardware, we don't buy blu-ray. It isn't that hard to go Sony-free. The only "vote" you have in the way Sony treats their customers is with your dollars. Vote for someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they are one of the only 3 decent gaming consoles (2 if you only care about HD) and have quite a few good exclusives that dedicated gamers can't help but care about.
Besides, it is unreasonable to expect that the vast majority of uninformed customer will do anything about it. Even if every customer that feels bothered by this decision stop buying, it won't be more than a scratch to their deep pockets. Even then, since you don't buy from them anymore, they won't care about what you think either. Votin
Wii, 360, PS3, and Wintendo make four (Score:2)
Because they are one of the only 3 decent gaming consoles (2 if you only care about HD)
There are three consoles and one device that is not a console but can be used like one: Wii, Xbox 360, PLAYSTATION 3, and Wintendo [catb.org] (a compact gaming PC running Windows Home Premium). Drop Sony and drop SDTV and you still have two different Microsoft choices.
And then they will cry piracy.
If people don't buy a Sony console, how can Sony claim mass copyright infringement of games that only run on a Sony console?
MPAA news (Score:2)
Why can't we vote with regulation?
Because of MPAA control over TV news [pineight.com]. The major TV news outlets in the United States are all owned by movie studios, and candidates for the U.S. Congress won't take positions against major movie studios during an election campaign for fear of TV news branding such candidates as irrelevant.
random monthly fees (like the bogus "tax-recovery" fee they still charge)
If regulators were to impose unfunded mandates on you, how would you recover the cost of implementing these mandates?
That marketing speak is actually a lie (Score:2)
To accelerate means to make something faster. This is billed as something to accelerate something for the first-party somehow. Who is the first-party? While it does inhibit other parties, it does not accelerate anything and would seem to inhibit even first parties.
We get it. Game companies seek to block after market activities such as rental and used sales. The success of the new PSPgo proves that their initiave is effective... right? Oh wait, isn't the PSPgo mostly rejected by the masses? I know I h
Re: (Score:2)
The first party is Sony, since that's who makes a "first party game" that uses PSN.
Note, that they aren't god. Their predictions of the outcome of doing something can be wrong without that meaning they lied when making the claims.
Re: (Score:2)
The failure of the PSP Go was not related with any blocking of after market activities, people are not rejecting that (I do, I prefer disc based games over online download), many people here love Steam, the masters of blocking second hand sale, even multiuser gaming on the same PC, and many others love to buy games from the Apple App Store and Android Market. The Go died because Sony did not had the infrastructure and rules to game makers to make games available on disk and as online download. many recent
I'm curious... (Score:2)
I've translated the marketing speak into layman's terms, but I don't understand something:
How does preventing second-hand purchase people from using online components allow SONY to more quickly make the online experience/contents better for the people who initially bought the game?
It's not like the tech people maintaining and unclogging the tubes actually work on creating the contents...
Re: (Score:2)
I understand what you're saying, but even that doesn't explain it because the 2nd hand dude most likely would not have paid the full price. So they're trading 1 player (full price guy) for another player (2nd hand guy). This makes no change to the total number of players on their servers.
To only thing that might explain this, is that the 2nd hand market prolongs the longevity of the game, which means that SONY needs to maintain the servers longer and can't use the hardware for another title's online feature
Translation (Score:2)
Ha, I new my MBA would come in handy. This has two main points:
"This is an important initiative ...
Point 1:
"We think this will make more money for our shareholders and executive's bonuses ..."
"...as it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhancing premium online services across our first party game portfolio."
Point 2:
"...We can also make the resale market less lucrative since you won't get a full game experience so a used game is worth less. We can then sell you a pass to unlock those features, w
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I had to translate your translation:
lagniappe = small gift given by a merchant, apparently. Are you in Louisiana because that's apparently the only place in the entire world that you're likely to run into that word.
Sony is hostile. (Score:2)
Sony is like a grape (Score:2)
As long as Razor1911 has anything to say about it (Score:2)
Don't see a problem with it if... (Score:2)
They also drop the price to 1/3 (or less) of what they used to be charging. I'll be damned if I'm going to spend $60+ on a game only to be stuck with it when I don't want it any more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"These games don't have monthly subscriptions because that only works with mmo games. This means the game company is fully dependant on the income from game sales."
Keep it in perspective: Sony (or whatever company involved for game X) will shut the server for that particular game down after X months or X years REGARDLESS of used or new game sales. It will be done. As such, this point you're making means nothing. They spend X dollars putting the server up. They base this off of new game sales, fine. BUT. In
Re:online games (Score:5, Insightful)
Few people play for 2 years (Score:4, Insightful)
whether I play the game for 2 years, using the services provided, or I play the game for 1 year and someone else plays the game for another extra year
In theory, there are no difference.
In reality, almost no one plays for 2 years : most players stays only a few weeks or months and switch to a new game.
So, it is much more easy to find 2 players playing for 1 year than 1 player playing for 2.
The game has been payed for, and that includes the 'right' to the services for however long I wish.
And its price has been established on the statistical cost of usage. Ask Sony for perpetual right to resale your game without feature loss, and they'll be happy to give you a sell you a more expensive version.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
First, they look at it differently: each second hand sale is a sale they earn no money from. They consider that a lost sale. This is debatable.
Second, you make the assumption that you payed for unlimited service for an unlimited time. In practice, however you have a limited amount of time you can play games and a limited amount of time you are willing to spend on this particular game. This is calculated into the price of the game. Each second hand gamer increases this particular amount of time per origina
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing the resale value reduces the number of first hand sales.
People, who bought the game expecting to get some of the money back might not do so when there is no resale value.
To keep those people the developer would have to set a lower price.
In the end, a second hand sale helps the developer to keep a certain price level, so it earns money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've of the opinion the only reason game companies introduced online modes to games is so they could better control how and who is playing a game. I remember back in the day having a LA
Re: (Score:2)
"Doing so also means most of the bugs are worked out by the time I get it."
Unless it's any of the crap from Lionhead Studios...
Fable II and Fable III are the most bug ridden turds I have ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, this is MONEY we're talking here. Sony doesn't give a shit if they're being fair. They don't give a shit about reasoning. If you're selling someone a used game, that's a customer lost who MAY have otherwise bought the game new. They see that as money out of their pocket.
And it's not just Sony. The same applies to just about every game publisher out there. Why do you think the PC game publishers were so happy to kill off the used market for PC games? They WILL move to do the same for console games. It'
Re: (Score:2)
If you look it up you'll see after killing the second hand market for PC games the sale of PC games in general dropped off and piracy became a much larger issue on the platform. Of course standard correlation/causation statement applies.
I guess the other plus side to killing the second hand market is that if consoles follow the same trend as PC games we'll see the prices drop too. I think killing the second hand market is a very stupid move on the publishers part because, as ot
Re: (Score:2)
If the original buyer sells the game, he is obviously bored with it. It's not a situation of original buyer playing two years or original buyer playing one year and other player playing one year.
This was the original point. However the second buyer wouldn't have bought the game at all if they had to pay full price. So either way the developer isn't making anymore weather buyer 1 plays for two years or buyer 1 plays for one year and buyer 2 plays for one year.
The comment about single player/lan/multiplayer games in the old times is slightly wrong.
My opinion that I prefer being able to choose who I play with is wrong? I'm so glad you pointed that out for me.
The recent generation multiplayer games have a lot more content and gameplay than they previously had. Unlocks, classes, customization. Even FPS games are getting close to roleplaying/mmo games. I personally love it. The best aspect for example in CoD multiplayer for me has been the customization allowed. I also love that TF2 is adding more and more of it. It's a lot different than from the quake times.
I personally find that being able to add content to the game after release has seriously degraded games. Instead of releasing a full
Re: (Score:2)
If the original buyer sells the game, he is obviously bored with it. It's not a situation of original buyer playing two years or original buyer playing one year and other player playing one year.
But it is neither a simple case of "without used games the developer would have sold twice as many games".
Not only my the person who bought the game used never have bought the game for full price, but the person who bought the game new might not have done so without knowing that he can get some of his money back by selling it to somebody else after a few months.
So used games help the developer (to some degree) by enabling more sales or keeping the price up.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only my the person who bought the game used never have bought the game for full price, but the person who bought the game new might not have done so without knowing that he can get some of his money back by selling it to somebody else after a few months.
So used games help the developer (to some degree) by enabling more sales or keeping the price up.
That's certainly the way it works for most car buyers - they buy new and expect to recoup money on the sale or they by second hand. If motor manufacturers fitted a device so that it would be disabled on resale there would be an outcry, and it would probably reduce their sales anyway!
Re: (Score:2)
"The recent generation multiplayer games have a lot more content and gameplay than they previously had. Unlocks, classes, customization."
and DLC, LOTS of DLC.... over half the game is missing in the box because the gredy Developers want ot charge us $12.00 a pop to unlock things that are actually already in the game.
Re:online games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The worked out they could do it with the PC market, so they're moving that test case across to consoles now..
Re: (Score:3)
Aside from a few hits, I don't think the PC market has had much success with that. Sure, they've reduced used game sales but they've also reduced overall sales and had to drop prices. Now all the money is in things like Farmville where the new/used issue is a nonfactor.
I think your parent poster got it right that there is considerable risk in doing this to console games. There is a chunk of used gamers who will start to buy SOME new games once used games is no longer an option. But there is another chunk
Re: (Score:2)
It's also an incredibly blinkered approach that could well backfire.
EA's actually been doing this exact thing for a while now (called "Project $10"). It hasn't backfired on them. I think Sony let EA take the "might backfire" plunge 2 years ago and watched how it played out. EA didn't seem damaged by it, so Sony is adopting it for their first party games now. And, of course, games have no say short of just not buying a game. Unfortunately, I have no faith that gamers will ever vote with their wallets (as was proven by the paid DLC push/uproar years and years back).
I d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not anti-open source, in fact I use CentOS and Fedora on my servers every day and I love its scripting abilities. That's where open source software really shines. At the same time I also understand (and acknowledge) that open source software has serious problems on desktop and especially with usability, because that is the truth. Of course we could all just lalalala, but doesn't that do more harm than bringing the fact out?
Pro Facebook? I'v
Re: (Score:2)
I don't hate Facebook either nor do I care much about Google plus, but I always get suspicious when someone posts a large and measured first post in the same minute as a new story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is the exact same issue when dealing with just about any store that specializes in used goods regardess if it's games, books,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These games don't have monthly subscriptions because that only works with mmo games. This means the game company is fully dependant on the income from game sales. When people resell their game the game developers get nothing, so they also have less incentive to support online games.
Thanks for the astroturfing, man, but your argument doesn't even make sense. The game developers also get nothing if the original owner continues to play the game.
Do I get reimbursed if I buy a game and stop playing after three months? Of course not, so why should the game developers get to double-dip if people play it for longer than anticipated?
Or consider books. I also own books I haven't finished even once. I don't pay more for the former, and I don't get money back for the latter, and in either case,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know such always get critized by customers and it's Sony here... But lets try to look at it objectively. Running online services costs money. Running online services that are constantly improved, have new items or classes or whatever rolled out and the game being balanced all the time cost a lot more money
So, your logic is that it costs SONY more to run servers when someone purchases a game off me and wants to play it online, than when I play it online myself?
Brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
The other one sadly is either monthly fees or things like this PSN Pass.
I believe you are mistaking PSN Pass with PSN Plus. Plus is the service that extends free PSN with free-to-play titles, discounts and other such junk. Pass appears to be the standard lock-out-the-used-game-buyers methodology used by Electronic Arts.
Re: (Score:2)
when you need more money from consumers, you don't take it from them by lowering the value of your games and basically forcing people to pay more.
you earn it from them by increasing their value.
Do you understand why this is so fucking backwards?
All sony has to do is start pricing games in the $20 range and they'd sell enough to get 3x-5x the profit they get off selling them at the $60 range. This isn't mystery math. Making a game a one-time use, and killing resale value, means the games have less value over
Re: (Score:2)
Re:online games (Score:5, Insightful)
They hope that nobody will be using the online services of the game a year after the initial purchase, but that's not something they're necessarily entitled to enforce.
Re:online games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or cars? How DARE you sell a car after you've sat in it!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really!??!!
I'm sure what you meant to say was "Selling your hardcopy of game X is akin to selling your DVD copy of film Y"
Saying otherwise is suggesting - like all good *AAs - "we should get paid every time someone experiences our work, regardless of how it is transferred".
That's fine - you can say that if you wish - first, reduce your prices to that of every other "experienced" offering - anywhere between 99c and $10 - thanks.
Anything else and you're double-dipping - why should that be allowed again ? Nope
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be absurd. If you buy a DVD, you are purchasing the right to watch the movie AND THE RIGHT TO SELL YOUR COPY. Nobody is going to pay $60 for the right to play some game one time and then have no power to sell it or give it away. It doesn't work that way with reality (bicycles, computers, cars), it doesn't work that way with other forms of art (books, paintings), and there is nothing special about digital media that makes it somehow wrong to sell what is yours. I'm truly sympathetic that artists do
Re:online games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:online games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:online games (Score:4, Insightful)
If the disk is mine, I can resell it as I want. It's like a book, and don't tell me that reselling books is bad. Once I sell the book, movie or game, I can't see/play it again. So, what's the problem?
And game creators do win with second hand sales. Because many people won't buy so many games if they couldn't resell them later and recover part of their money.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mix game creators with game distributors into the same bag.
In that regard, only the first sale pays.
I suspect that you lack basic knowledge of how the market works. Game developers most of the time get very very limited premium from well selling game - most if not all profits stay with the publishers.
What you say applies better to the self-published indie games - "Game authors get nothing" - but not to the majority of games distributed by big publishers where game authors were already paid in advance for creation of the game.
Keep that up, and soon nobody will create anything anymore. Why feed the leeches? Can't you see that?
Nonsense.
You probably never being around creative people. People create n
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, yes, I think that is as bad. You can't unsee the movie can you? You don't pay for the DVD disk, you pay to see the movie. In case of DVD, as many times as you like.
Bzzt, wrong! When you buy a DVD you are paying to have a licensed copy of that DVD. You can watch it as many times as you like, you can watch it with other people, as many times as you like, you can watch it with different groups of people as many times as you like, you can lend it to other people as many times as you like. It is just like a book. I do not believe that the second hand book market stopped new books being published and neither will a second hand games market stop new games being created.
An ex
Re:online games (Score:4, Interesting)
Die. That's the kind of "Licensing" bullshit that the media business have been trying to force on us for years. If I buy a DVD, I buy a DVD. If you're saying I'm licensing the right to see the movie then I demand the licensing company send me a replacement DVD every time my copy gets a scratch.
Re:online games (Score:5, Informative)
The media companies have been waging war against the consumer for over a century.
- "Copy Protection" - so that consumers can't even safeguard their own purchase. If I want to make a separate copy of a purchased video/game and keep the original in a safe place (someplace where, say, inquisitive dogs and 3-year-olds can't get to it), that should be my right.
- Shrink-wrap licenses. Remember when Adobe tried to sue a company that resold its products, claiming the terms of the (unopened) shrinkwrap license included an agreement not to resell?
And if you want to go WAY back: remember, the book publishers tried to stop the creation of the US's public lending library system. Now, with the terms on eBooks, they're trying to pull the same crap and make it impossible for libraries to still serve their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
The library eBook thing sort of makes sense to me: a digital copy can be reproduced almost infinitely for almost no cost. Everyone could rent a book from a digital library for free. I for one would welcome this future of free reading material.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Used game shops make money on each sale. But they didn't make the game. Game authors get nothing. That is why it's bad. Keep that up, and soon nobody will create anything anymore.
Heh. I just have this image in my head of an insanely popular game only selling 1,000 copies, and lots and lots of people spend years patiently waiting for one of those copies to become available at a used game store.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No sir, people pay for products and services, not "experiences" (not for a movie, not for a game)
When people go to the theater, they're paying for a service: the service of a seat in a room with a screen for a certain time, during which happens to be running a movie. While in the theater, people could completely ignore the movie that's showing and not "experience" it at all during the time (fall asleep, make out with boy/girlfriend, focus on chowing down on the popcorn, etc)
When people buy a DVD, they're bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be making a better (but less effective) analogy if you compared it to renting a game.
A movie ticket is a consumable commodity that entitles you to a service, that of watching the movie. It's quite different from purchasing a hard copy of the DVD.
Hard copies enjoy the First Sale doctrine, and as long as the original buyer relinquishes all rights to the property, the next buyer should be entitled to the benefit of his bargain.
I suspect though that your own analogy is inherently weak because the positio
Re:online games (Score:5, Interesting)
And selling your car used is like stealing cookies from the store. It hurts the guy on the line building a car. you should destroy your car when you are done with it.
Selling your home after living in it hurts carpenters, you really should burn your house down when you move.
Let me guess, inviting friends over to watch a DVD I bought is theft in your eyes. What if I play that movie again? is that also stealing?
I only buy used games and I resell my used games to others because new games are incredibly overpriced. If I am hurting you personally by doing that, than that makes me very very happy. And I will continue to ONLY buy used games from now on. If it makes your industry crumble and puts people like you, that have a horribly distorted sense of reality out of work, then that makes me feel like a hero.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people out there right now developing games for free because they love doing it. There are also very cheap highly entertaining games, Minecraft is one of my favorites at the moment. I've convinced both my sisters, my brother and their significant others to play as well and for the price the entertainment can't be beet. There will always been things to play and if your industry was doing things right you'd have
Re: (Score:2)
No your movie ticket gives you entrance to one performance; you are basically renting that performance.
There is a difference between buying a film and renting a film - likewise there historically has been a difference between buying a game and renting a game.
Re: (Score:2)
A movie ticket is a pass to a 1 time event, 60+ dollars for a physical product is a bit different, and fuck you for telling me what I can and cant do with my own god dammed property
suck my ass mr tator, or should I call you dic
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogies are like artichokes flying to the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest that Sony and other developers base their statistical analysis on game time, etc. on the TRUE lifespan of a sold copy, including used sales, instead of solely on first-sale plays. Then they can come up with a true pricing model based on the very legal practice of the sale of used games, instead of trying to circumvent gamers' rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy have I got news for you. I have lots of old games I love replaying. Every time I pick up an old game and play it, I show the same interest in it I had when I first bought it. By your logic after the first couple weeks/months I've owned the game I should have lost interest so the company shouldn't have to support the game anymore because I've alre
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that smart phones I think are killing the game vendors. Sure there are die hard gamers, but that market I would say is saturated. Those who became gamers became, and those who don't game don't. It's a binary thing. Though smart phones on the other hand are attracting a whole lot of people who might have played games and bought one or two games.
I am thinking of the Super Mario or sonic the hedge hog type gamers. Not the halo palyers here. With these restrictions all they will do is demoli
Re: (Score:3)
I think that such a generator would break one of the Linguistodynamic Laws, it being a perpetual drivel machine.
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of text tends to happen when there are meetings between marketing and legal (what an unholy union that must be).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Could you also address you're letter to EA, Warner Bros. Interactive, and all of the other companies that have been implementing an "online pass" system in their games, since It's not just Sony. As a side topic, does anybody have list of games that require online pass for multiplayer?